`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`*
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`NO. 21-2242
`
`SECTION “T” (2)
`
`
`
`
`
` *
`
` *
`
`G.K.
`
`VERSUS
`
`D.M.
`
`
`ORDER AND REASONS
`
`Pending before me is Plaintiff G.K.’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 347) of this
`
`Court’s June 5, 2024, Order and Reasons (ECF No. 345) denying his Motion to Compel
`
`Depositions of Intervenors in Poland (ECF No. 329).
`
`The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide specifically for motions for
`
`reconsideration.1 Whether analyzed under Rule 54(b), Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), motions to
`
`reconsider “serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact
`
`or to present newly discovered evidence.”2 They are not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence,
`
`legal theories, or arguments.3 When there exists no independent reason for reconsideration other
`
`than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources
`
`and should not be granted.4
`
`Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the court’s denial of his request to compel his former
`
`attorneys to travel to Poland for deposition. ECF No. 347-1 at 1-2. Plaintiff repeats the argument
`
`raised in his Motion to Compel regarding the financial burden and health concerns associated with
`
`travel to the United States to depose the intervenors. Id. In doing so, Plaintiff has not established
`
`that reconsideration is proper. He has not demonstrated, nor even argued, the presence of any
`
`
`1 Cressionnie v. Hample, 184 F. App'x 366, 369 (5th Cir. 2006); Shepherd v. Int'l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 (5th
`Cir. 2004).
`2 Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989).
`3 Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990).
`4 Livingston Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Jefferson Downs Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 471, 475 (M.D. La. 2002).
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02242-GGG-DPC Document 348 Filed 06/17/24 Page 2 of 2
`
`factor warranting reconsideration of a court’s order nor does he establish manifest error of law or
`
`fact, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, manifest injustice, or intervening
`
`change in controlling law. He again cites no basis for this Court’s authority to compel New
`
`Orleans-based counsel to travel to Poland to submit to deposition in that country in relation to a
`
`case proceeding in this district.
`
`Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the court’s decision does not warrant reconsideration.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 347) is DENIED.
`
`New Orleans, Louisiana, this ________ day of June, 2024.
`
`___________________________________
`DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17th
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
